Dan says:"With an increase in shortwave it's entirely possible to have increases in longwave escaping for a period, but what is important is the relationship there, relative to what the ratio would have been without extra CO2."

You're armwaving with no figures to show.

"I know your side likes to harp on the IPCC regarding the positive water vapor feedback predictions, but I am one that believes we certainly have experienced increases in negative H2O feedbacks."

"Global Warming has been adjusted to Climate Change in case you have not noticed."

Yes, amusing isn't it?

And the IPCC has just redefined "climate change" too:

They recently redefined climate change as:

“A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use”.

This is different from the previous definition. IPCC states:

“This definition differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change is defined as: “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability.”

This is a sneaky move. In effect they are making a post hoc rationalisation to make their previous position more tenable, or a least less untenable…

"Rog, it seems like from what you say above that there is an effective energy balance going on with plenty of longwave getting back to space yet you use this same period of C20 solar activity to explain why things are warm now and gradually cooling. You can't have it both ways."

I don't need it both ways, and nor am I trying to have it both ways. I said that OLR increased and temperature rose. The Earth responded to the increased solar activity and the consequent reductionn of cloud by shifting the jet streams polewards, thereby losing more energy faster. But this still resulted in warming because the sun was more active than it has been for 8000 years. Now that the Sun has gone sleepy, the jet streams are moving equatorwards again as the Earth conserves energy in the oceans, which are now cooling, as the ARGO data showed until the latest 'adjustment' of the data to force it to conform to the cockamaney co2 theory.

Let's increase the temperature 5 degrees because it will increase bio-diversity

But some human populated areas, like Southwest U.S. and Southern Europe will lose much rainfall so will become un-inhabitable and people will have to move to Canada and Siberia which will become much more inhabitable.

Jerry says:You said you're genuinely interested to know about evidence for global warming because of increased CO2.

I am, but you haven't presented any. The author of the paper you offered regarding the Eocene thermal optimum admits he doesn't know what caused it.

I think you assume global warming is hoax and just gin up "evidence"There's no doubt the globe has warmed since the little ice age ended around 1700. But what warming there has been is well within the bounds of natural variability observed in proxy data and the historical temperature record.

it's time for us to start getting off fossil fuels to minimize the effect.

No effect has been proven. You just keep implying it has and hope no-one will notice. You must be getting paid by Big Wind to spout this kind of unsupported rubbish.

Jerry says:Let's increase the temperature 5 degrees because it will increase bio-diversity

Man proposes, nature disposes.

But some human populated areas, like Southwest U.S. and Southern Europe will lose much rainfall so will become un-inhabitable and people will have to move to Canada and Siberia which will become much more inhabitable.

New empirical study shows that this is incorrect:

Parched soils trigger more storms

Afternoon storms are more likely to develop when soils are parched, according to a new study published this week in Nature which examined hydrological processes across six continents.

The results have important implications for the future development of global weather and climate models which may currently be simulating an excessive number of droughts.

The research team included scientists from the UK, Holland, Austria and France and was led by Dr Chris Taylor from the NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology in the UK.

The scientists examined imagery from weather satellites which track the development of storm clouds across the globe. When they matched up where new storms appeared alongside images of how wet the ground was, they were somewhat surprised.

Dr Chris Taylor from NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology said, “We had been looking at storms in Africa and knew that rain clouds there tended to brew up in places where it hadn’t rained in the previous few days. We were surprised to see a similar pattern occurring in other regions of the world such as the US and continental Europe. In those less extreme climates, with more vegetation cover, we expected the soil wetness effect would be too weak to identify.”

The researchers compared their observations with six global weather and climate models used to simulate climate change. They found that the existing models do the wrong thing, triggering rain over wetter soils.

The implication is that existing climate models are more likely to go into a vicious circle whereby dry soils decrease rainfall, leading to even drier soil conditions. The paper concludes that fixing this problem is a priority for scientists developing the climate models.

Dr Taylor added, “Both heat and moisture are critical ingredients for rain clouds to build up during the afternoon. On sunny days the land heats the air, creating thermals which reach several kilometres up into the atmosphere. If the soil is dry, the thermals are stronger, and our new research shows that this makes rain more likely.”

Co-author Dr Françoise Guichard from CNRM-GAME (CNRS and Meteo-France) said, “We need to improve climate models so that we get a better idea of what global climate change will mean on smaller regional scales over land.”

I was just at big box store - LED lights are finally showing up - about $25. Equivalent CFL bulb was maybe $3. LED doesn't have mercury and is a little more efficient. Only problem is they're made in China or Mexico. We are blowing opportunity to make these in the U.S.

The quantitative work on this issue is ongoing, and is not yet 'well constrained'. At the latest we are looking at somewhere between 5% and 40% of the airborne increase being due to human emission.

On this basis, if half of the ~0.35-0.45C rise in surface temperature since 'global warming' began in the '70's was due to co2 increase, then we might be responsible for 5-40% of 0.175-0.225C. This works out to be somewhere between almost nothing and 0.088-0.1C.

I don't disagree that we should be putting a lot of effort into R&D on smarter ways of generating electricity, but it shouldn't be rolled out until we have something genuinely viable, or it's just another taxpayer ripoff.

Rog, here's an example of positive and negative feedbacks being in the same paragraph just as they are in actual climate - just one example out of many from both sides of the fence;

http://www.elpis.com/think/en/green_environmental_facts/5/articles/8

This comment below of yours is just one of your attempts to make us believe that you believe in alternatives and it shows you really don't know how the real world works. Without realtime and serious attempts to build and create alternatives, it won't happen. You don't want to 'waste' any money? What a joke, as if roads to developement are a 'waste' if they don't immediately lead to replacement of the status quo. Your comment that gives you away;

" I don't disagree that we should be putting a lot of effort into R&D on smarter ways of generating electricity, but it shouldn't be rolled out until we have something genuinely viable, or it's just another taxpayer ripoff. "

From Dan's link:For example, we mentioned above that warming creates a moister atmosphere, and that this acts as a positive feedback. However this also creates a negative feedback - a moister atmosphere is more likely to create low altitude clouds, which reflect sunshine and so make the world cooler. The net outcome depends on numerous other factors.

Yes Dan, water is amazing stuff, which acts as warm blanket and air conditioner and air purifier and parasol all at once.

Now, my comment was in regard to your claim that co2 can be a positive or negative feedback.

Firstly, I'm pleased you recognise that co2 change is primarily a feedback and not a forcing, but secondly I'd like you to explain to me how, when and where it can act as a negative feedback in the climate system.

You need to have windmills located at different places so when the wind doesn't blow one place, it'll blow another, with power lines between them and where the demand is

You can have some of the demand controlled by the power company - for example air conditioning could be run when the wind is blowing, freeze ice, and use that when you need the cooling. Or the bottom element in hot water heaters (assuming you have wasteful American style tank water heaters - I believe you have more on demand heaters). Or charging an electric car.

You can store some energy - have solar heated Sodium, store that, and use it to produce electricity when needed

Solar panels work during the day, wind mills work better at night

If you have hydro power, you can run it more when the wind isn't blowing

Natural gas as backup when all else fails. That is currently the cheapest source of electricity.

This is more complicated than just powering up a coal plant so current operators are reluctant

For example, the federal government should contract to buy a large number of LED lights from U.S. producers. This would kick start manufacturers to cheaper LEDs that would then make sense for private users.

Give coupons to U.S. private users like they did initially for CFLs. Now CFLs are cheap enough that isn't needed. Because of this CFLs are more prevalent now than they would have been otherwise. Only problem is, it should be restricted to U.S. producers.

"Thanks for the non-sequiteur. So they've got a temperature proxy. Does this help them determine if the rise in co2 came before or after the rise in temperature?"

No, it determines nothing, I was just answering your question, knowing full well that you would trash the paper, no matter what proxy was used, just because the paper doesn't jive with your world view. The fact is, it's ludicrous to use any proxy from that far back, as far as temps are concerned. What the paper seems to point to, is that the change in carbon isotopes they found 'appear' (yes, their interpretation and a what you call a 'weasel word' which some would call a way of saying, quite rightfully, that there is no way to know for sure), to indicate that the increase in organic carbon ratios found in the coral precedes an increase in sea level. Not definitive proof, just suggestive.

"As I've shown you again and again and again throughout this thread...The reason it runs to 147 pages and Nick Gatel feels like he's on an acid trip is because the warmies here are in denial of basic physical facts and keep repeating the same fallacies.

Lynn for one ought to know better."

Oh, I know better. Everything that was interesting and brought something new to this discussion was said in the first 6 or 7 pages. The last 140 pages and 4.5 years have just been filibuster, with everyone going around in circles. So remind us what was that bet with Dean, and when is judgment day?

Lynn says:The fact is, it's ludicrous to use any proxy from that far back

Correct. But this didn't stop Kump from trumping it up into a scare article in the Sci-Am magazine did it?

knowing full well that you would trash the paper, no matter what proxy was used, just because the paper doesn't jive with your world view.

Incorrect, I trashed it for the same reason you have.

Everything that was interesting and brought something new to this discussion was said in the first 6 or 7 pages. The last 140 pages and 4.5 years have just been filibuster, with everyone going around in circles.

Not so. A lot of new science and old hidden truths have come to light over that time, and although they've been swamped by repetition of fallacy from the warm side, they stand in the record. I regularly back up this entire thread, so those who have been deleting stuff which has been proven wrong later are out of luck. ;-)

So remind us what was that bet with Dean, and when is judgment day?

The bet for one thousand dollars rests on whether the average of the main global surface temperature indices trends up or down between 2005 and 2020Dean says it'll be warmer, I say it'll be cooler. Here's how we stand at the moment.

.

Nicely poised on a pretty flat trend, very slightly in my favour at the moment.Want a piece of the action Lynn? Feel free to make a proposition. ;-)

"The bet for one thousand dollars rests on whether the average of the main global surface temperature indices trends up or down between 2005 and 2020"

I was more interested in whether the two of you had agreed on what 'proxy' of temperature change you agree to, otherwise the bet is meaningless. There are so many pieces of data to choose from to prove one person right and one wrong, that I hoped you had pre-agreed on what is measured, by who, how, and if any kind of data manipulation/smoothing etc...are allowed?

"Want a piece of the action Lynn? Feel free to make a proposition. ;-)"

Not me. I am the agnostic here, and firmly believe there is not enough knowledge around for anyone to be certain of the outcome. I am cautious, not cocky. Being cautious, I fully agree with Jerry that there should be more urgency to reduce anthropogenic CO2/methane for a lot of reasons, the possibility of climate change being just one of many reasons.